On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 01:14:36PM +1000, Ben Nizette wrote:
It's a bit counter-intuitive, given the inverted logic employed by many
Kconfig options (enable vs disable and so on), default choices, select
abuse, etc. If your platform happens to select EMBEDDED it's a pretty
close approximation, though.
Most people are not opposed to taking additional defconfigs if there's
someone intends to use them and generally look after them. Many configs
are already included in linux-next and similar for nightly builds, but
that's more about making sure things keep working rather than size
measurements. On the other hand, it would be useful to extend that sort
of infrastructure to account for size changes, also, and there's
certainly no reason why minimal configs can't be rolled in, too.
For testing things like allmodconfig/allyesconfig and especially
randconfigs tend to be the most useful, but it's fairly difficult to
extract meaningful size statistics out of any of those. Likewise, a
minimal config tends to be pointless to the extent that it's not actually
useful for anything. Observing the growth in size on configurations that
people are using in the real world is far more useful. Measuring
arbitrary growth in a configuration that's not even usable isn't really
much of an indicator of anything, except that someone might have too much
free time on their hands.
--
